Summary of NGO Monitor analysis of ICAHD

April 30, 2009

ICAHD Funding

ICAHD has received funding from the EU since at least 2000. In 2005, this NGO received 472,786 Euros for 24 months from the EU through the Partnerships for Peace program (EU link has expired, from NGO Monitor report, December 18, 2008). In 2008, PfP funding for ICAHD was not renewed.

ICAHD received (p.3) $80,000 from the NGO Development Committee (NDC) which is made up of the pooled funding from the governments of Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, and Sweden in 2008-9.

ICAHD’s annual budget (NIS):

2003 – 1,837,178
2004 – 1,928,743
2005 – 2,220,975
2006 – 2,346,196

For 2005 and 2006, EU funding represented approximately half of ICAHD’s budget

The main officials in ICAHD are Jeff Halper and Angela Godfrey-Goldstein

Political Advocacy

1) ICAHD statements on the “One or Two-state solution”

At a UN conference on “Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People” in September 2003, Jeff Halper lectured on “One State: Preparing for a post Road-Map struggle against apartheid” where he claimed that “[t]he “two-state” solution envisioned by all Israeli governments since 1967…is simply unacceptable”…”The stage is thus set for the next phase of the struggle for a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: an international campaign for a single state”…”our slogan in the post-road map period will be that of the South Africans’ struggle against apartheid: One Person, One Vote.” (“One State: Preparing for a post Road-Map struggle against apartheid,” Jeff Halper at UN, New York, September 5, 2003, fromoccupiedpalestine.org)

In 2008, Halper stated “I think it is impossible to have a Jewish state. I think we have to start talking about Israel and not a Jewish state. Either there is a two-state solution, a state of Israel for all its citizens — including Palestinian Israelis — and a real Palestinian state, or a one-state solution in which we all live together in one democratic country. Those are the options.” (“Jeff Halper in Gaza: ‘We are the oppressors’,” Rami Almeghari, Electronic Intifada, September 1, 2008)

In interview called “An Israeli in Gaza” Halper said, “I think mathematically there are only three solutions: one state, either bi-national (most likely) or a unitary state like South Africa; two states, which is still preferred by the vast majority of Palestinians in Palestine…or apartheid — a “two-state solution” envisioned by Israel in which the Palestinians are shoved into a Bantustan on a truncated 15% of historic Palestine and Israel controls the rest, including borders, movement, water, Jerusalem, and even the airspace. I believe that Israel has eliminated the two-state solution by its settlement project, and only an assertive US Administration can force Israel to withdraw to a meaningful degree, which is possible if US interests are at stake but unlikely. Since apartheid is not an option, we are left with a one-state solution, which I think is difficult — the history of bi-national states is not a happy one — but do-able if both peoples go into that project in good faith (very unlikely on the part of Israel).” (“An Israeli in Gaza: An Interview with Jeff Halper,” Frank Barat, Monthly Review, December 12, 2008)

In the same interview he said, “I have advanced what I call a “two state-plus” solution based on the idea of a loose regional economic confederation involving Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Key to that is the freedom of all the residents of the confederation to live and work anywhere among its member states, as in Europe. This would eliminate the issue of how big the Palestinian state is, neutralize the Occupation (since the settlements and Israel proper would be fully integrated), resolve the refugee issue, and shift the burden of economic viability from a tiny Palestinian state to the entire region.”

“Israel’s supposed ‘offer’ to withdraw from 95% of the West Bank will create not peace, but rather a Palestinian prison state…Just as prison guards ‘control’ only 5% of a prison (the outer walls, cells, and corridors), so too will Israel border crossings, settlements, and bypass roads continue to control a Palestinian mini-state. The only solution: dismantle the Matrix of Control completely”. (“For A Just Peace Between Israelis & Palestinians,” ICAHD with Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights, 2002 – hard copy)

“The Israel-Palestine conflict is often framed in terms of territory: Ending the occupation, a viable Palestinian state, and what that means in terms of territory. But two states and a complete end of the occupation, even in the best scenario, is not really the best solution. The whole Palestinian state would be on only 22% of the country, divided between the West Bank and Gaza. The State of Israel today, within the 1967 borders, represents 78% percent of the country. So even in the ideal situation, if the entire occupation ended and Israel pushed back to 1967 borders, the Palestinian state would be in only 22% of the country.” (“Israel and the Empire,” Jeff Halper and Jon Elmer, FromOccupiedPalestine.org, September 20, 2003)

2) ICAHD partners with radical Palestinian NGO Sabeel

Jeff Halper often appears with Sabeel, headed by Naim Ateek, the former Canon of St. George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem, and among the leading organizations promoting boycotts and demonization of Israel, particularly in churches. Ateek often uses anti-Semitic language in his attacks on Israel. See NGO Monitor’s profile on Sabeel.

Jeff Halper and Rev. Naim Ateek (head of Sabeel) spoke together on the “Israel Divestment Strategy” at the 2008 San Diego Sabeel Conference.

Halper and Ateek jointly addressed the Council for the National Interest under the title, “Israeli Policy Makes a Two-State Solution Less Likely” in Washington DC in February 2007. The archived video is summarized, “Rev. Naim Ateek and Jeff Halper discuss how Israel’s policy of apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza make a two-state solution unlikely and even impossible.” (“Summary of CNI Foundation “Public Hearing” with Jeff Halper and Naim Ateek,” Carlton Cobb, February 16, 2007)

Halper addressed a Friends of Sabeel-North America conference in August 2003.

Friends of Sabeel-North America has reportedly raised money for ICAHD in response to the EU ending its funding for ICAHD. (“Anti-Israel Outfit Turns to America for Funds,” Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, October 1, 2008)

3) ICAHD on alleged Israeli violations of international humanitarian law, and campaigning against Israel-EU relations

Alleges that Israel seeks to “Inflict collective punishment on Palestinian and break their will to resist the occupation of their land. Achieve a silent ethnic transfer by making life so unbearable that Palestinians will leave their country”.

“The destruction of homes and the displacement of innocent Palestinian families directly violate international law and human rights standards and treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.

“In spite of the Israeli massacres and the continuing blockade of Gaza, and despite the fact that the last Council of Foreign Ministers halted the upgrading of EU-Israel Agreement in December, the European Commission continues to prepare a new ACTION PLAN which will bring Israel vital new economic, commercial and social benefits, bringing it closer than ever to full entry into the EU Community Programmes…We must press the EU to take this opportunity to express the outrage that European civil society feels towards Israel in a suspension of relations with Israel until it ends it’s human rights abuses against the Palestinian people and abides by International Law.” (“European Elections – Lobby Candidates on Upgrade of EU-Israel Trade Agreement,” Palestine Solidarity Campaign, posted on ICAHD website, April 17, 2009)

4) ICAHD using demonization rhetoric and support for boycotts

In a listing of “daily atrocities and tragedies suffered by Palestinians and Bedouin under Israeli Occupation” for distribution to the Israeli public, ICAHD staff referred to “ethnic cleansing”, “state terrorism”, “land theft” and a “massacre”. (“Don’t Say We Did Not Know,” Amos Gvirtz, March 20, 2007)

“The motivation for demolishing these homes is purely political: to confine the three and a half million residents of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza to small, crowded, impoverished and disconnected enclaves, thus effectively foreclosing any viable Palestinian entity and ensuring Israeli control”.

“Settlement blocks become part of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem metropolitan areas”

“The Separation barrier – the barrier is a political border, not a security device”

“The Result: A Palestinian Bantustan”.

“The Palestinians are deprived of meaningful self determination…Barak’s ‘generous offer’ to withdraw from 95% of the Occupied Territories never was. But even had it been made, it would have only locked Palestinians permanently into a kind of prison-state”…Only by dismantling Israel’s Occupation completely and establishing a viable Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, joined perhaps in a confederation”.

“This is a Matrix of control. Until it is dismantled, we are faced with the spectre of a new apartheid arising before our eyes. This is the meaning of Sharon’s plan of “separation” and “disengagement”.

“The Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are incarcerated, without human rights, in the world’s largest prison”.

“Why does Israel behave this way? Out of the 12,000 Palestinian houses that have been demolished, only 600 were for security reasons. The rest have been destroyed:…To build settler by-pass roads. To construct the separation wall. For military installations. As collective punishment”.

“The demolitions form a part of a much bigger strategy that aims to: confine the Palestinians to crowded, impoverished and disconnected enclaves. Make life so unbearable for the Palestinians that they leave”.

ICAHD UK – “What we do: lobby and influence UK government and European Union on behalf of the Palestinian people as they seek their viable state”.

“But Israel does want a Palestinian state because it needs to get rid of the three and a half million Palestinians currently living in the Occupied Territories. If it can’t send them out of the country, it at least wants to enclose them in a little Bantustan-type state.”

“…in a situation where Israel feels demographically threatened, and therefore existentially threatened, it could resort to transfer as a last resort”.

“Israel is very important, because on the one hand it is a very sophisticated, high-tech, arms developer and dealer. But on the other hand, there are no ethical or moral constraints: there is no Congress, there are no human rights concerns, there are no laws against taking bribes – the Israeli government can do anything it wants to. So you have very sophisticated rogue state – not a Libyan rogue state, but a high tech, military-expert rogue state. Now that is tremendously useful, both for Europe and for the United States”.

“The Foreign Ministry of Israel invented a new form of anti-Semitism in the last few years called the ‘New anti-Semitism,’ and they then found some professors willing to give it some academic credibility. The New anti-Semitism that is now being spread all over says that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, period”.

6) ICAHD and the “Free Gaza” campaigns (2008)

ICAHD – UK is listed as an endorser of the Free Gaza movement, which sought to bring boats to Gaza and break the Israeli naval embargo.